Tremendous progress has been made in the clinical landscape of advanced-stage BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treatment over the past 5 years. Targeted therapies that inhibit specific steps of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway have been shown to provide significant overall treatment benefit in patients with this difficult-to-treat disease. Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib plus trametinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, respectively) has become standard of care. These agents are administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs; thus, some patients may remain on maintenance therapy for an extended period of time, while toxicities may result in early discontinuation in other patients. Because the goal of treatment is to prolong survival with minimal impairment of quality of life, drug-related adverse events (AEs) require prompt management to ensure that patients derive the best possible benefit from therapy. Proper management depends on an understanding of which AEs are most likely BRAF or MEK inhibitor associated, thus providing a rationale for dose modification of the appropriate drug. Additionally, the unique safety profile of the chosen regimen may influence patient selection and monitoring. This review discusses the toxicity profiles of these agents, with a focus on the most commonly reported and serious AEs. Here, we offer practical guidance derived from our clinical experience for the optimal management of key drug-related AEs.

Implications for practice

Targeted therapy with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors has become the standard of care for patients with advanced-stage BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. To provide optimal therapeutic benefit to patients, clinicians need a keen understanding of the toxicity profiles of these drugs. Prompt identification and an understanding of which adverse events are most likely BRAF or MEK inhibitor associated provide a rationale for appropriate therapy adjustments. Practical recommendations derived from clinical experience are provided for management of key drug-related toxicities.

Intratumoral gene electroporation uses electric charges to facilitate entry of plasmid DNA into cells in a reproducible and highly efficient manner, especially to accessible sites such as cutaneous and subcutaneous melanomas. Effective for locally treated disease, electroporation of plasmid DNA encoding interleukin-12 can also induce responses in untreated distant disease, suggesting that adaptive immune responses are being elicited that can target melanoma-associated antigens. In vivo electroporation with immunomodulatory cytokine DNA is a promising approach that can trigger systemic anti-tumor immune responses without the systemic toxicity associated with intravenous cytokine delivery and potentially offer complete long-term tumor regression.

Although immunotherapy has been remarkably effective across multiple cancer types, there continues to be a significant number of non-responding patients. A possible factor proposed to influence the efficacy of immunotherapies is the gut microbiome. We discuss the results and implications of recent research on the relationship between the gut microbiome, our immune systems, and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies including anti-CTLA-4 Ab and anti-PD-1 Ab. While the investigations all exhibit interesting results and conclusions, we find little congruence in the specific bacteria that were found favorable for antitumor responses. It is unclear whether the inconsistencies are due to differential approaches in study design (pre-clinical or clinical subjects, anti-CTLA-4 Ab or anti-PD-1 Ab), experimental methods and measurements (metagenomics sequencing and clustering variations) or subject population dynamics (differential cancer types and baseline characteristics). Moreover, we note studies regarding particular bacterial commensals and autoimmune diseases, which challenge findings from these investigations. We conclude that with the current research, clinical investigators can appreciate the critical role of gut microbiota in mediating immunostimulant response. However, prospective research exploring the biochemical mechanisms which commensal bacteria communicate with each other and the immune system is imperative to understand how they can be adjusted properly for higher immunotherapy response.

Skin cancers are among the most physically accessible malignancies, so local delivery of a medication into the tumor, so-called intratumoral therapy, is an appealing route of drug administration. Intratumoral therapies have the potential to increase local drug concentration and/or attract immune cells to the local tumor microenvironment, possibly with fewer systemic side effects. A wide array of intratumoral agents have been studied to date in patients with advanced melanoma, including chemotherapeutic drugs, immune modulating agents, and cancer-directed vaccines. In this review, we will summarize the key pre-clinical and clinical data supporting the use of intratumoral therapy for advanced unresectable and metastatic melanoma. First, we will discuss the history of intratumoral immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma and the various agents studied to date. Second, we will explore how intratumoral therapies can constitute an in situ vaccine, potentially leading to disease control both locally and systemically. Finally, we will highlight opportunities in the field and key future directions.

Advanced melanoma has historically been a difficult disease to treat due to few effective systemic treatment options. However, over the past few years, scientific advancements in immune checkpoint inhibition have resulted in several novel approaches that have changed front-line management of advanced melanoma. Despite these exciting developments, there remains room for improvement in treatment outcomes. Combination immunotherapy, in particular combined cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, represents an important first step in this direction.

Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer. Metastatic melanoma historically carries a poor prognosis and until recently there have been few effective agents available to treat widely disseminated disease. Recognition of the immunogenic nature of melanoma has resulted in the development of various immunotherapeutic approaches, especially with regards to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor and its ligand (PD-L1). Antibodies targeting the PD-1 axis have shown enormous potential in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Here, we will review the immune basis for the disease and discuss approved immunotherapeutic options for advanced melanoma, as well as the current state of development of PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies and their importance in shaping the future of melanoma treatment.

Traditional chemotherapy has resulted in only a modest response, if any, for the 3 most common cutaneous malignancies of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Recent advances in understanding of the defects in the pathways driving tumorigenesis have changed the way that we think of these cancers and paved the way to targeted therapy for specific tumors. In this review, we will introduce the novel systemic treatments currently available for these cancers in the context of what is understood about the tumor pathogenesis. We will also introduce ongoing studies that will hopefully broaden our options for highly effective and tolerable treatment.

Background

Metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high mortality rate and the fastest growing global incidence rate of all malignancies. The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations has yielded significant increases in PFS and OS for melanoma. However, at present, no direct comparisons between different BRAF/MEK combinations have been conducted. In light of this, an indirect treatment comparison was performed between two BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapies for metastatic melanoma, dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, in order to understand the relative efficacy and toxicity profiles of these therapies.

Methods

A systematic literature search identified two randomized trials as suitable for indirect comparison: the coBRIM trial of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib versus vemurafenib and the COMBI-v trial of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib. The comparison followed the method of Bucher et al. and analyzed both efficacy (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall response rate [ORR]) and safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs]).

Results

The indirect comparison revealed similar efficacy outcomes between both therapies, with no statistically significant difference between therapies for OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 - 1.30), PFS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 - 1.40), or ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 - 1.10). Dabrafenib plus trametinib differed significantly from vemurafenib plus cobimetinib with regard to the incidence of treatment-related AE (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 - 0.97), any AE grade ≥3 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 - 0.85) or dose interruption/modification (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 - 0.99). Several categories of AEs occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, while some occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. For severe AEs (grade 3 or above), four occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and no severe AE occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib.

Conclusions

This indirect treatment comparison suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib had comparable efficacy to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib but was associated with reduced adverse events.